MMRGlobal, Inc. (fka MMRF)

[croptop]

http://histalk2.com/2013/02/25/histalk-interviews-robert-lorsch-ceo-mmrglobal/

comments....GREAT!!! And hilarious Some were not convinced, LOL

24 Responses to “HIStalk Interviews Robert Lorsch, CEO, MMRGlobal”

1
EMR2013 Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Last time I checked, Epic was not fully live at UCLA. But speaking of Epic, does MyChart infringe on your patent?
2
Matthew Holt Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 6:31 pm

This is a classic example of how completely fuxxxed up the patent system is. We have McKesson and Epic suing each other, and now Bob Lorsch shows up with magically having invented the PHR is 2005. I interviewed him in 2006 (transcript) when basically he was just another of the more than 200 PHR companies out there

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2007/03/12/podcasttechconsumers-bob-lorsch-from-my-medicalrecords-com/

His wrinkle was that you could fax in handwritten or printed out notes into their system and it acted like a vault. Everything else about MMR was just the same as any other standalone PHR. Even that was fax in functionality was similar to the functionality PersonalMD had in 1999-2000. The Autopopulation of claims data into the PHR my old company i-Beacon had in 2000-1 as did Wellmed (now WebMD), and I just do not see what else they have now that’s so special–other than an owner prepared to drop tens of millions on his pet project.

Given that Bob wouldn’t tell Mr H what was so special about his patents, my guess is that this is yet another example of a late arrival making some minuscule change to a commonly available technology and bamboozling the patent office. Another good reason for abolishing software patents altogether.

How any of this helps the emergence of a real PHR market is beyond my comprehension. 750,000 users–if he’s telling the truth–is not a whole lot to show for 8 years on the market, so I doubt there’s a real business under the hood here–other than one being kept alive by Bob himself. now he decides that the Australian taxpayer and health care payers of the US should make him whole. So why Bob is not just a patent troll is beyond me.
3
TheMDofTruth Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 8:15 pm

Can you say, blow hard?

Stop trying to compensate for your receding hairline with opening remarks like “I sold my business in 1998 for several hundred million dollars to AT&T”.

We all know just because you donate money to charities (tax write off) and are heavily involved with non-profits, (that pay you a nice salary) doesn’t mean you are a good human.

Good luck to you, buddy.
4
Francis Young Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 8:30 pm

I just researched the company and I am very impressed! Alcatel Lucent uses MyMedicalRecords as one of the main features in their program (http://youtu.be/2dnlkHXW4z8) and besides that Lorsch has an amazing story. It’s hard not to route for someone like that. I wish them the best of luck
5
LoneWolf Mcquade Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 9:13 pm

Looks like he had good timing. The company sold to AT&T was bankrupt
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/20/business/company-news-at-t-will-pay-192.5-million-for-smartalk-teleservices.html

And this one as an accumulated deficit of $52 million
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1285701/000113626112000617/form10q.htm

but Mr. Lorsch has a very nice house:
http://lorschland.com/index.cfm?id=382216&fuseaction=browse&pageid=1
6
Donna Cusano Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 9:55 pm

I have been following MMRGroup and their legal activities this past month (and prior) in Telecare Aware: http://telecareaware.com/?p=4488 http://telecareaware.com/?p=6707. Thank you for this interview which I discuss here: PHRs, ‘meaningful use’ and patent infringement (US) http://goo.gl/AoBBU

My question is that hospitals and practices deal with vendors such as McKesson, Epic, Cerner, GE. I know that hospital and large practice HIT departments do heavy customization of these systems with the vendors. But what does not make sense to me is why MMRG does not go after the Epics, etc for patent infringement, but can legally collect licensing fees from the end users–unless the PHRs are custom and not part of the package. Any clarification would be extremely helpful.
7
Anonymous Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 10:04 pm

@EMR2013 – UCLA goes live Friday (3/1), so he’s technically correct that they don’t talk to each other…

With any patent questions, one has to dig into the actual patents and see what the truth of the matter is, and do it with a patent attorney. Unfortunately that’s so expensive that people, without appreciating this, will sign deals to license patents that they probably didn’t have to license, or could have avoided completely by changing a few pieces of how their product functions, since in most cases they would infringe only a couple of claims. The patents that this organization has been awarded likely have a number of claims that could be invalidated with prior art, since PHRs have been around much longer than 2005, but they may have successfully patented their core business, which seems to be faxing in medical records to be part of a PHR. They also have some sort of biotech business going on (not really sure how those two mix).

If anyone knows a bored patent attorney, and has the cash to pay for the prior art review (since that’s not a free request to the USPTO) then maybe this can be changed.
8
Eddie T. Head Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 3:00 am

At least one clarification is in order – “They both have Epic systems. They can’t talk to each other.”

This is incorrect – if they have Epic installed, they can talk to each other. That doesn’t mean that they do, but they can if they wanted to. This has been pointed out many times before, including fairly recently – see comment 13 from January 14: http://histalk2.com/2013/01/12/monday-morning-update-11413/

From the list referenced in that comment, it seems that a Kaiser patient from Southern California can indeed get their records if they fall ill in Sheboygan.

Here is another article on the record sharing features of Epic: http://www.deancare.com/about-dean/news/2010/madison-emergency-services-urgent-cares/
9
Eddie T. Head Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 3:32 am

Here are the patents in question (without the presumed investment pitch in the “valuation” mentioned).

http://www.google.com/patents/US8301466?dq=8,301,466&hl=en
http://www.google.com/patents/US8352287?dq=8,352,287&hl=en
Patent 8,352,288 is not known to Google
http://www.google.com/patents/US8121855?dq=8,121,855&hl=en
http://www.google.com/patents/US8117646?dq=8,117,646&hl=en
http://www.google.com/patents/US8117045?dq=8,117,045&hl=en
http://www.google.com/patents/US8321240?dq=8,321,240&hl=en

I wish I could say “what a joke” but unfortunately the patent system is so broken, it will take significant effort to fight something like this. Here is to hoping that common sense will prevail, as it did in this case: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/how-newegg-crushed-the-shopping-cart-patent-and-saved-online-retail/
10
Mr. HIStalk Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 7:05 am

[From Mr H] I asked the question about patents being the future of the company after reading a blog post by Bob Lorsch, in which he said,

“When I started MMR in 2005 I believed it could be the most successful venture of my life. At that time, I did not know how I would get there because there is never certainty in something that has not happened yet. Through the inner voice of natural knowing I simply knew I could. So I started thinking out of the “BOXES” which became the four corners of many pieces of paper called patent applications. Now it appears the resultant patents (and pending applications) should help get us through to the most successful venture of my life.”

http://blog.mmrglobal.com/2012/12/27/valuable-patent-rights/
11
ms Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 8:19 am

“The patent is like three legs of a stool. You plant the first leg and the stool is going to be a bit wobbly. Then you plant the second leg and the stool is going to be solid…”

Remind me to never buy furniture from this guy.
12
Mr. HIStalk Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 8:45 am

[From Mr H] Per a reader’s question, the company’s most recent financial statement shows $31,000 in subscriber revenue plus another $315,000 for MMR Pro.

A company announcement from yesterday suggest that it will begin sending infringement notices to portal and mobile health/wellness app vendors:

http://www.stockhouse.com/news/usreleasesdetail.aspx?n=8745952
13
Anonymous Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 9:44 am

A good prior art review can be done by a licensed professional for $1000. Asking the USPTO to review a patent isn’t that expensive either. Retaining a patent lawyer will cost $500/hour and will be the main cost, but shouldn’t be more than a $20,000 which is far less than this company will charge any one organization for any licensing fee. It just takes one organization to challenge and negate these patents. If only a few organizations that are being threatened by this company combine resources to challenge these patents, it shouldn’t come to more than $5000 per organization. The financial hurdle to negation isn’t that high.
14
Huh?? Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 9:59 am

Anonymous, I’m all for challenging junk like this but your numbers just aren’t reality. The average cost for infringement cases where a defendant WON is almost $2M and takes 18 months. If it was just 20K, don’t you think more people would fight these things?
15
Anonymous Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 11:02 am

Huh??

You are talking about taking a case to court where costs are astronomical just as you state. Not all cases need to be taken to court. I was addressing negation of a patent by the USPTO. Anyone can ask the USPTO to review a granted patent and negate it if you provide adequate prior art demonstrating that it never should have been granted. It never has to go to a court.
16
Anonymous Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 11:44 am

The problem with the USPTO reviewing the claims is that it takes forever for them to do so. If you’ve already been sued by the company then you can’t tell the court to hold off while the review happens. That’s why patent trolls hit fast and hard and try to lock in licensing deals that are independent of the validity of their patents, that way if the patent gets tossed they still get their money.

Right now they’re on a fishing expedition to try and find a lot of people who will pay, which he can then use as validation to others that his patents have merit in order to get them to also pay. There’s no way that he has enough people on staff to actually check if someone that they’re sending a claim to actually violates the patent, which is what IMO turns them into a patent troll.

The tossing of the claims may come in time after USPTO review, but the way the patent system is now it’s cheaper to just pay the license fees and go about your business than it is to fight in court. The patent system needs to be changed to require the person bringing the claim to pay all fees in the case that they lose (plus a half dozen other changes) before this stuff will be fixed.

Plus, why are they suing hospitals and other organizations rather than EMR companies, who are actually the ones making and selling the technology, and actually the ones violating the patents? Hospitals aren’t selling anything, and didn’t make or steal that technology for the most part. Probably because those groups don’t have the necessary legal staff and time to fight back, and he can more easily add them to his list of licensees (i.e., social proof of his claims), and if he actually tried to take on Epic or Cerner or another big EMR company, they would fight it and it would gut his business model.

TLDR – Real patent holders only sue those that are violating their patents; patent trolls sue everyone, with or without merit.
17
Holly Mathis Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 1:29 pm

tough crowd
18
Tim Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 4:08 pm

This is a perfect example of how screwed up our patent system is. Regardless of what he says, Lorsch is the definition of a patent troll. What happened to the requirement of non-obviousness in patents? some of the claims in these patents would be obvious to anyone who’s ever seen a doctor before. People like Lorsch abuse the patent system and file bullshit patents like this so that they can sue everyone in sight to make a quick buck before the USPTO finally gets around to reviewing the patent
19
Anonymous Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 5:00 pm

The reason Epic and others are not being sued is that they are not USING the technology (therefore not infringing upon it)

You have the ability to do lots of things with Epic, whether they are legal or not is all around whether you do them or not.

With Epic you can program the system to overcharge a patient, but if you don’t then you are fine.

You can decide not to use MyChart, then again you may be fine, but if you do, you may be infringing on this patent.

Instead of debating this, you should go out and buy shares in this company. At 2 cents a share, which way do you think the price will go if just 20% of the 750 infringers license the technology?
20
Anonymous Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 7:38 pm

MMRGlobal probably is trying to take advantage of the USPTO’s lag time, but I hope there is a national hospital association out there that reads this interview and sees a direct threat to every one its members and starts the ball rolling on eating up that lag time to get these patents reviewed. The USPTO may be slow, but so are the courts. By paying extra, a patent applicant can have their application reviewed within a year as opposed to the usual 2-3 years. There is likely some way to expedite a patent review as well. Hospital associations could even have enough clout to pull on a senators coat tail and have them ask the USPTO to give this reveiw special consideration given how much damage these patents could do to hospitals and healthcare. An expedited review could take place and negate these patents before any cases that this company tries to take to court actually start. Starting the ball rolling now would at least minimize the damage this company does.
21
2cents a share? Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 7:53 pm

If a company’s stock being 2 cents a share is a selling point, then clearly someone doesn’t know much about money.

It’s amazing someone can come across so sleazy in an interview like this.
22
EMR2013 Says:
February 26th, 2013 at 8:31 pm

Altria is usually a good stock also!
23
dee Says:
February 28th, 2013 at 9:26 am

#13,20 are correct re the approach that hospital associations and medical associations, which have some clout and $, should be taking. The attitude should be not ‘negotiate and write the check’ but ‘prove it, buddy’. The bigger issue is that if the ‘art’ they patented is at all unique, and wasn’t used by others prior to 2005. If Mr. Lorsch and MMRG can prove infringement and their patents are unique and defensible, let’s get it out there and establish it in the courts. Instead with this latest squib (#12 HIStalk) about going mobile, they are going even broader against thinly financed app developers. Essentially it’s rent-seeking. MMRG has just enough of a business to appear legitimate and not a patent troll, but if their biz is so great, why are they trading at 2 cents?

Whatever happened to ‘millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute’?

BTW they’ll be at HIMSS 2013 booth #3363, so if you want to give Mr. Lorsch a piece of your mind…
24
Actual Alice Says:
January 5th, 2015 at 6:03 pm

Lorsh’s patents declared invalid

12/22/2014 103 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,498,883 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc) Modified on 12/22/2014. (lc). (Entered: 12/22/2014)

12/23/2014 104 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,466 90 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court finds that the asserted claims of the 466 Patent are patent ineligible, and Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend. Defendants are directed to submit a proposed judgment by January 8. 2015. All hearing dates in the above captioned cases are VACATED and all pending motions in the above captioned cases are MOOT. (lc). Modified on 12/23/2014. (lc). (Entered: 12/23/2014)